Page 49 - May June 2019 TPA Journal
P. 49
After he was advised of his rights, Sarli confessed he agreed to be paid to deliver the package of cat
that he drove to a Wal-Mart parking lot to meet an litter from one person to another. Furthermore,
unknown man who gave him the box of cat Detective Contreras testified that the
litter—and that he agreed to be paid for methamphetamine seized from Sarli’s truck was
transporting that box of cat litter to another the second largest quantity of methamphetamine
unknown man he would meet at the restaurant. he had ever handled.
Sarli was indicted for possession with intent to “The standard for measuring the scope of a
distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine suspect’s consent under the Fourth Amendment is
under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § that of objective reasonableness”—what a
(b)(1)(A). He moved to suppress the reasonable person would have understood by the
methamphetamine and his statements to police as exchange between the officer and the suspect.
the products of an unlawful search. After a Officer Torres did not qualify or limit his request
suppression hearing, the magistrate judge for Sarli’s consent, and “an affirmative response
recommended that the motion to suppress be to a general request is evidence of general consent
denied. The magistrate judge found that the to search.” Where there is ambiguity regarding
officers had probable cause to search Sarli’s the scope of a consent, the defendant has the
vehicle at the time of the traffic stop, but that the responsibility to affirmatively limit its scope.
probable cause had dissipated by the time of Sarli placed no such limits.
Detective Tamez’s search. The magistrate judge
nevertheless found that Sarli had validly [emphasis by ed.]
consented to the search, that he had not limited the
For his part, Sarli claims that he was unable to
scope of his consent, and that Detective Tamez’s
observe the search as it was being executed,
search of the cat litter box was valid.
because he was physically placed in a patrol car
The district court agreed that the stop of Sarli’s shortly after he gave consent. But we have
vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion, rejected the notion that a consensual search ceases
that the outstanding warrant justified his arrest, to be valid simply because the accused is unable
and that the truck was subject to impoundment to observe the conduct of the search.
under police policy. It also found that the officers
In addition, Sarli claims that his consent reached
initially had probable cause to search the truck,
its “natural end” before Detective Tamez’s search,
but that the probable cause had dissipated by the
citing United States v. Escamilla… Escamilla,
time Detectives Contreras and Tamez arrived.
there was a four-hour delay between two disparate
However, the district court agreed that Sarli
searches. Here, by contrast, the entire search
validly consented to the search, that Detective
lasted less than an hour, and the police maintained
Tamez’s search did not exceed the scope of his
continuous control over the truck to allow various
consent, and that Sarli had not objected to the
officers and sniffing dogs to conduct overlapping
continued search or tried to revoke his consent.
searches during that time. In short, there was no
Sarli proceeded to trial. At trial, Detective identifiable “natural end” to Sarli’s consent.
Contreras testified that when a marked police unit
Accordingly, the district court properly denied
first entered the parking lot, Sarli behaved
Sarli’s motion to suppress the evidence seized
nervously and quickly drove away. Officer Torres
from Detective Tamez’s search of Sarli’s vehicle.
testified that, following his traffic stop, Sarli
appeared shaky. Detective Contreras presented U.S. v. Sarli, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-50294, Jan. 16,
unchallenged testimony that Sarli confessed that 2019.
May/June 2019 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 45
